Tuesday 10 November 2015

Omnishambles on Track

The latest report from HM Probation Inspectorate has just been published and in somewhat under-stated language confirms that the omnishambles is indeed progressing nicely and there's nothing to worry about:- 

Summary and Key Issues
 

Assisting sentence and the assignment of cases 

Communication between the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies was improving. There appeared to be better liaison concerning the flow of information relating to pre-sentence work. Several of the Local Delivery Units inspected had established effective systems to check whether cases were known to a Community Rehabilitation Company before sentence. There was, however, little discussion between the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies over appropriate proposals for reports. Further, there were still too many cases without a sufficient Risk of Serious Harm screening, and where necessary a full analysis of the risk of serious harm, in place before allocation. 

A Risk of Serious Recidivism score had been calculated in almost all cases. Based on the information on the case management system, the case was with the right organisation. Further investigation of Risk of Serious Recidivism scores, however, showed that a number were inaccurate, when compared with our inspector’s calculation, and that a few cases were being allocated incorrectly. Some had misinterpreted the guidance and either ignored relevant information or placed it in the wrong section of the tool. This led to some cases being allocated to the Community Rehabilitation Companies when they should have been with the National Probation Service. There were no quality assurance processes in place to improve the completion of the Risk of Serious Recidivism tool. 

The Case Allocation System had been completed in less than two-thirds of cases. Where it was done, it was completed on time and we also saw an improvement in the quality of the information it contained, with fewer sections marked ‘not known’. The timescale for completing the Case Allocation System, however, was often too short for external agencies such as children’s services or police domestic abuse units to return information. 

Due to the demands to see offenders quickly, there was a shift towards group induction, particularly within the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This was unpopular with a number of offender managers who felt that individual inductions resulted in better engagement. We found no evidence, however, to suggest that individual induction was more effective than group induction. 

Early Work in the Community Rehabilitation Companies 

Most cases were assigned to an identified offender manager within one working day of sentence. Fewer than half of the cases we inspected, however, had their first appointments with their offender managers within five working days of sentence. Full information on new cases was often not available at, or immediately following, allocation. In many instances this information followed on after the case had gone to a Community Rehabilitation Company.

The Offender Assessment System likelihood of reoffending assessment was sufficient in just over half of cases. Sentence plans were not always completed in good time and did not always address the factors relating to offending, or wider diversity issues and barriers to engagement. 

Many of the offenders supervised by a Community Rehabilitation Company had committed violent offences, or had been involved in domestic abuse. There were concerns about protecting children in a number of cases. Only two-thirds of Risk of Serious Harm screenings and half of full risk of harm analyses were sufficient. An effective risk management plan was in place in fewer than half of all relevant cases. Failure to assess accurately the risk of harm and then implement a plan to reduce it can lead to a focus on inappropriate work and to an increase in the harm an offender may pose.

Overall, appointments were offered in line with the requirements of the sentence and staff had made efforts to motivate offenders to comply. Non-compliance was addressed quickly by Community Rehabilitation Company staff who issued warnings appropriately and sought to re-engage offenders and promote compliance with the sentence. 

Early Work in the National Probation Service 

Almost all sampled cases were allocated within one working day and seen by their offender managers within two working days. Diversity issues and barriers to engagement were identified in the majority of cases; however, plans to address these issues were only developed in two-thirds of relevant cases. Most cases had a sufficient assessment of the likelihood of reoffending but timeliness was an issue. Sentence plans were sufficient in two-thirds of cases and where completed generally did contain appropriate objectives. 

Most cases had a Risk of Serious Harm screening in place but some staff had taken too long to complete them. Full risk of harm assessments were sufficient in just over half of the cases we inspected. Assessments did not always draw on all available sources of information and the analysis of the risk to children was not good enough in too many cases. Poor quality assessments led almost inevitably to poor quality risk management plans, less than two-thirds of which were sufficient. Where there were concerns over the safety of children, we found that the use of Child Protection procedures by National Probation Service staff needed to improve. Management oversight had not been effective enough to address these shortfalls. 

The frequency and type of contact was good in most cases, and in the majority interventions had been delivered as planned. Where offenders failed to comply we saw a robust response and appropriate use of the enforcement process. More home visits should have been made, however, where offenders posed a risk of serious harm to the public and in Child Protection cases. 

Enforcement 

Overall, the enforcement process was variable, with some Local Delivery Units still experiencing high rejection rates for breach packs. Many had been returned for spelling and grammatical errors or to question proposals. The best examples were found in Local Delivery Units that had established good quality assurance processes and positive relationships between Community Rehabilitation Company staff and National Probation Service prosecution staff, making swift enforcement more likely. 

Swift enforcement is more likely to secure engagement with planned work and future compliance. To breach a case, the Community Rehabilitation Companies must produce a breach pack and pass the case to the National Probation Service for prosecution. There are a number of timescales which have to be met and these should be recorded clearly on nDelius. Recording was not clear in half of the breach cases we inspected and this made it difficult to determine if the required timescales had been met. 

The small number of licence cases in the sample were enforced correctly by the Community Rehabilitation Companies and all the recalls we saw were appropriate. 

Risk Escalation 

The process of escalating cases to the National Probation Service in the event of an increase in an offender’s risk of serious harm was improving. Staff confidence had grown and there was a greater investment in the value of the process in most of the Local Delivery Units we visited. Almost all the cases we saw had a clear and justifiable reason for starting the escalation procedure. 

In some Local Delivery Units the process was described by staff and managers as working well and quite clearly it was; however, that was not the case in all Local Delivery Units with some staff highly critical of their local processes which, in our view, operated much more effectively in some places, than in others.

There was considerable debate among Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service managers concerning cases where an offender had been arrested or charged but then not convicted of a serious offence. In some instances, the National Probation Service had been left holding an escalated case which was not classified as posing a high risk of serious harm. Better communication between Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service would help to streamline the process. Further, there remains room for improvement in recording the required information on the case management system.

19 comments:

  1. Seems even HMI of Probation can't get his head around the fact that licence recalls are the responsibility of NOMS. CRC & NPS merely request revocation of a licence with evidence/argument as to why they feel its appropriate; the recall is actioned or refused by NOMS staff in the relevant Recall Section.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And they are supposed to be inspectors of probation.

      Delete
  2. As a non-NPS or CRC person this makes terrifying reading, The statement that "Where there were concerns over the safety of children, we found that the use of Child Protection procedures by National Probation Service staff needed to improve" is worrying, these are children lives we are discussing.

    Whilst the comments relating to Domestic Violence "Failure to assess accurately the risk of harm and then implement a plan to reduce it can lead to a focus on inappropriate work and to an increase in the harm an offender may pose" suggests that women's and children's lives are in danger.

    This is why this blog is important, it allows people to see what is happening in the brave new world Grayling created. It would appear from this report that it is only a matter of time before some child or women pays the price.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with @14:13: "Where there were concerns over the safety of children, we found that the use of Child Protection procedures by National Probation Service staff needed to improve. Management oversight had not been effective enough to address these shortfalls."

      So sack the useless fucking managers who were meant to be Grayling's chosen ones, the cream of the crop, blah, blah, blah, blah. So does NPS = National Pisspoor Service? As for CRC's, they either don't or won't have the staff left to deal with safeguarding.

      The scandal & consequences of nepotism, aka selection, aka sifting, aka shafting, is now unravelling.

      Delete
  3. As the push to get 90% of all reports done on the day, in court, there will be even less good assessments or information available. The ROSHA will be full of, not known as there wasn't sufficient time to access and assess the information! But then if everyone is to be tagged, no need, just wing it and hope the children, partners and parents are safe! The MoJ seems to have set aside all those lessons learned from baby p, and numerous SFO's over the years! We really are Governed by people who couldn't give a rats arse about other people!

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'The timescale for completing the Case Allocation System, however, was often too short for external agencies such as children’s services or police domestic abuse units to return information'

    This is so woolly: 'often too short'. What does this mean? How long do external agencies need and what protocols have been agreed between the managers of the respective agencies?

    There is a nod to resources and a kowtow to TR

    'These findings replicate what was found in our earlier inspection, and continue to reflect the pressure on staff to deliver what is required with allocated resources within the timescales that exist'.

    This language used by the Inspectorate is bland. They could have been bolder spelling out the truth. But they are part of the doublethink. They could, if they had integrity and took safeguarding seriously, have written thus:

    In other words there are not sufficient staff to do the job. Staff are as overworked now as they were when we did our earlier inspection and no one has done anything to address staff shortages. The timescales are perverse because they they provide insufficient time for a depleted workforce to deliver the goods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are expecting rather a lot of Paul Wilson - an intellectual lightweight who was a NOMS Board member until he got the HMI job! Got to be a knighthood in the offing surely....

      Delete
  5. It's ok because the majority of reports will now be completed by pso's.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for publishing - it reads about as bad as was feared. I endeavoured to alert my MP , Priti Patel from Witham, but she declined to give her attention and told me she had checked with key Essex people as the ORB was completing its passage through parliament and was reassured all was well there and indicated that was her main concern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my area the CRC aren't really bothering to breach people. There are DV perpetrators who haven't been seen for months and have effectively dropped off the radar. It's a disaster waiting to happen and when the shit hits the fan Purple Fuckers will be in deep reputational trouble.

      Delete
    2. I have heard that some crcs are trying to reduce breaches as they affect targets.. Not sure if this is true tho

      Delete
    3. True in Working Links areas. It's becoming a farce.

      Delete
    4. Very true plus trying to avoid recall

      Delete
  7. Rarely, very very very rarely do I get a full-risk of harm analysis, even when screening indicates it and then its generally piss poor. CRC staff in my area are so overwhelmed there is no time for the detailed assessments once achieved. I actually defend my NPS colleagues too, particularly those in Court, who again do not have appropriately allocated time to do the assessments properly. I have in the past ignored someone screened as low risk of harm and completed full-risk of harm based on offence and previous related offending. No time to do such now and oral reports are so piss poor with lack of information, CRC are either spending too much time having to do detailed interviews in order to complete a reasonable OASYS assessment or just using info provided by NPS which in cases of DV, repeat drink driving are not worth the paper they are written on. No I DO NOT blame NPS staff - I blame TR.

    ReplyDelete
  8. what a whitewash! Everything is piss poor in my area with too many examples to mention ! I'm NPS and our experience of risk escalation is dreadful! We get an email informing us of a risk escalation case Then expected to hunt down the info on delirious!! We are all on 115% + on the WMTS and are struggling to keep our heads above the water! It's only a matter of time .....

    ReplyDelete
  9. And when u have only ten days to complete an ISP then you are going to be rushing and are unlikely to have all the info you need

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is so depressing they are only inspecting compliance with processes (which is much less good than it was) Inspection was meant to be much more focused on impact, change achieved and quality of engagement. They really have put the clock back

    ReplyDelete
  11. “Due to the demands to see offenders quickly, there was a shift towards group induction, particularly within the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This was unpopular with a number of offender managers who felt that individual inductions resulted in better engagement….fewer than half of the cases we inspected, however, had their first appointments with their offender managers within five working days of sentence”
    That’s because they are seen in group inductions so don’t need to see the OM in the first 5 days. Does the Inspectorate actually understand the targets of a CRC now?

    ReplyDelete